Framtidens tankesätt – Algoritmiskt tänkande och införandet av programmering i norsk grundskola ur ett teknikfilosofiskt perspektiv

The purpose of this study is to examine how the competence oriented concepts that are being highlighted in discourses concerning the introduction of programming in Norwegian elementary schools, may be interpreted through approaches from the field of philosophy of technology. As a way of structuring this examination, the discussion has been centenred around the following research questions: 1. What is covered by a Norwegian understanding of the concept of algorithmic thinking and what competeces are being stressed within this understanding? 2. How is creativity connected to algorithmic thinking and how is creativity understood as one of the key competences of the future? 3. How do the current discources concerning programming in school relate to Paperts attempts at working with programming in schools in the 1980- and 90s? A number of official documents from 2013-19 have been analyzed in order to illuminate how algorithmic thinking and creativity are presented as key kompetences for a future society. The study has been conducted within a qualitative, hermeneutical perspective and a multi-perspectivistic methodological framework based on discourse analysis, with a main focus on critical discourse analysis and Faircloughs three-dimensional model (see Figure 1, p. 49). The anaysis shows that the Norwegian discourse has adopted an ambivalence towards the relationship between programming and algorithmic thinking similar to its international counterpart. Creativity is being highlighted as one of the key competences and qualities associated with algorithmic thinking, and as a much sought after competence for citizens as active co-creators of tehchogoly within a future society. Paperts experiments with programming through creative problem solving processes are being used as reference points and models in the process of recontextualizing the creativity concept to fit the cultural horizon and technical codes of our time. The discource’s strong focus on competece in co-creating and problem solving as vital in a future society, may point to tendences towards a revision of the concept of democracy and technology similar to Feenberg’s notion of democratical rationalisation. However, the analysis also reveals the presence of deterministic tendencies, as coping with expected rapid changes of society are being put forward as the underlying purpose of renewal of education. The futuristic perspective that frame these discourses, also points at connections between function and meaning, where Feenberg’s hermeneutic approach may suggest an angle from which the analyzed discourse may be viewed as an attempt towards defining the functions of future, yet unknown technologies